Very interesting interview with Tony Incenzo on Talksport today...

[della79]

pete has been very quite today,i hope he heard good things last night

[The Leveller]

Sounds promising to me, i also feel you sir should be representing us!

Thanks, but no thanks. One should never do work where there is an emotional attachment it clouds ones judgement.

[theblackmafia.]

In English


The Sun is more powerful than the FA

Laksmi & Bernie are more powerful than half the planet if they wanted to be

(i havent read the piece..all i know is that if our owners want to win,we will do)

don't be daft

[The Leveller]

don't be daft

How true.

1) Max Mosely and F1 (BE)
2) Crashgate and FB
3) Guns at SARgate GP

Not a sound record to base any hope on.

Only the Mittals have a track record of winning by avoiding the need to be foreced into it or when it has happend to go on and win. Not sure they will get to close to this as really before their greater involvement in the club and they would not wish to be tranished.

[stainrodisalegend]

incenzo said on friday that if this was a murder case no paper could say anything. and we got tarred with the guilty brush before the hearing. thus breaking the fair hearing law. and QPR heard this and are likely to have contacted whomever is in charge of the hearing to say you cant say we're guilty and that the hearing we will get is not fair. remember in this country its innocent until proven guilty.

Big difference - that is in a case of criminal law in a court - this is no such thing, its the equivalent of an inquiry by whatever trade or professional association may govern the particular line of work you are in.

[TBLOCKRANGER]

Tony is our Hero

The point he raises is spot on imho. It was also touted by some of the posters here when the story broke.

The right to a fair trial is enshrined in Article 6 of the Human Rights Act and from my understanding applies to administrative proceedings which I think this FA hearing is.

The clubs lawyers have clearly picked up on the point as they wrote to the FA not only to say they must distance themselves from the stort (which the FA obviously did v quickly) but more importantly told the FA to investigate the leak.

The FA clearly incapable of investigating anything they messed up Wembley, world cup bid and also these charges surfaced due to QPR appearing to go to the FA saying they wanted to buy out the contract not by way of FA actually finding anything out themselves.

I think the club's lawyers will point to the clearly prejudicial newspaper story plus the lack of any investigation into the source of the leak as a clear breach of Article 6.

Everyone must be entitled to a fair hearing, for example if I get sacked tomorrow for allegedly being offensive to a cardiff fan, i can take my case to an employment tribunal which under Article 6 must hold a fair trial and be independant etc, the same rule must apply to QPR otherwise kangaroo courts will florish.

I think we'll be OK and i am pleased that Bernie (who must know the best sports lawyers due to his F1 connections) and Mittel (who clearly isnt funding our defence by way of legal aid) are men that must of seen off far more difficult challenges than a 4 person panel when getting to the top of their respective businesses. The FA source should have imho but clearly hasnt and that must be us and a big to Tony, i hope anyway

[Stanley]

The trouble is that the FA investigation team believe that there is a case to answer to and that is why the club has been charged. In addition and in the absence of any coughing up of the Sun's source which will not happen, the FA will say that there has been no briefing to the press and no decision has been made which is partly true. It is up to the club and the legal team to present a defence as to why the charges do not stand up to inspection. The one that will is perhaps in regard to the agent.

The legal team may try to ask for the charges to be waived, however the downside of that is that the team risk implying that the external QC is tainted and not capable of acting without bias. It will be seen as a ploy to avoid the charges being heard. Not a clever line to take and the charm offensive must be to present a case that gets him on side and not in a bunker. Far better to seek documented assurances regard no prior discussion, guidance given or any other formal or informal contact from the FA Committe and its investigation team. The QC will not have the power to throw out the case, that will require the majority of the other appointees to agree. If he or she feels that there is a process in play that undermines him or her or is so flawed they will withdraw. They earn far too much money from their other Chambers work to risk their reputation.

The Leveller, Tony Incenzo is making the point that the case has now become prejudiced due to Friday's Sun article declaring us as "guilty" before the case has been heard. He then makes the point that in any court in the land the case would get thrown out purely on those grounds and that the clubs lawyers have been working on this very point today in their preparation. Its not a question of as you say "the external QC is tainted and not capable of acting without bias", but the very fact that the case has been PRE-judiced. I think that's the point Swanley was trying to make as well.

[stainrodisalegend]

Yep, but sadly as I've explained the "prejudice" argument does not exist in non-criminal cases - so good effort Tony but its as you were.

[davman]

Sorry, but that argument is so flawed. Who's to say that QPR did not 'plant' the story into the Sun? There is no proof that the FA leaked the story or that the source for the Stun's story came from within the FA.

Just wait and see; that's all that we can do...

[wicksta]

1) Max Mosely and F1 (BE)

Umm, what?

[RussRanger]

Ahem. Surely The Sun could argue that the word "Guilty" wasn't a judgement on the case but regarding our own admission to the clerical error we made? We did admit we made a clerical mistake and that we are guilty of that, if they wanted to spin it. Not sure it would hold much substance but they could argue that that is what it refers to.

[moon_safari]

If all goes the way the barrister believes it will, the beers will flow

[EYR]

If all goes the way the barrister believes it will, the beers will flow

Moony do you think it will take till friday?

[Stanley]

Yep, but sadly as I've explained the "prejudice" argument does not exist in non-criminal cases - so good effort Tony but its as you were.

Seems he might be right though - Paul Smith has just tweeted that QPR are attempting to have the hearing thrown out pending an investigation into the FA leaks, which he's saying the FA have refused to investigate.

[The Leveller]

Yep, but sadly as I've explained the "prejudice" argument does not exist in non-criminal cases - so good effort Tony but its as you were.

It does to a degree but not the same way as a criminal case I would agree. Its all over the news and anybody in sport would know the outline facts as would the Tribunal anyway in advance of the hearing. Unless the team has evidence then this line of defence will not be helpful it will then set a course of confrontation with the Tribunal. The same people you want to influence into finding the club clear as charged.